Page 48 of 83 FirstFirst ... 38464748495058 ... LastLast
Results 471 to 480 of 830

Thread: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

  1. #471
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    And what part of equal protection of the laws do you not understand?

    Unequal protection of the laws is denied to the states. It doesn't have to be something specifically mentioned in the constitution to require equal protection.
    Still waiting for you to show me marriage in the Constitution. Equal protection is for laws in the Constitution not common law.

  2. #472
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    He says interracial marriage is a race issue, not a marriage issue, but is unwilling to admit that same sex marriage is a gender issue, not a marriage issue.
    Again, please show me marriage, Common law, in the Constitution. Amazing, how simple this is except for zealots who don't give a damn about anything other than their own social issues.

  3. #473
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Then you aren't reading the Constitution:

    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


    The very text of the 14th Amendment itself shows you are wroing because it specifically places limitations on the States.


    >>>>
    Great, how does this relate to common law? Did you read the definition of common law? Every American in this country has the same rights when it comes to marriage. I cannot marry my sister, my mother, my dog so you tell me what the difference is? Are you going to support that next?

  4. #474
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Your interpretation is irrelevant. The same with mine or anyone else's outside of the federal judiciary. The federal courts are the ultimate arbiters of the constitution. The federal courts have ruled consistently that the equal protection clause is interpreted as no law at no level of government whether its federal, state, or local, can deny equal protection under its jurisdiction to anyone. For example, while owning a drivers license is not a specific constitutional right, a state cannot deny drivers licenses to individuals under its jurisdiction simply due to their race, sex, religion, and so on. Its a pretty simple concept and that is why the federal courts have been so consistent with their rulings striking down state bans on same sex marriage recognition.
    And yet the will of the people is being ignored and that should scare the hell out of every American. Marriage is a state issue, it is common law, and the Federal govt. should never be involved. Activists justices are involved and making law rather than interpreting law. There is one solution, a Constitutional Amendment. You aren't going to like the outcome.

  5. #475
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,770

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    And yet the will of the people is being ignored and that should scare the hell out of every American. Marriage is a state issue, it is common law, and the Federal govt. should never be involved. Activists justices are involved and making law rather than interpreting law. There is one solution, a Constitutional Amendment. You aren't going to like the outcome.
    I can't speak for everyone else, but I can't get worked up over a slippery slope argument that begins with the judiciary EXPANDING human rights (or privileges if you prefer) to an historically disfavored group.

  6. #476
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I can't speak for everyone else, but I can't get worked up over a slippery slope argument that begins with the judiciary EXPANDING human rights (or privileges if you prefer) to an historically disfavored group.
    I have a problem with anyone calling marriage a civil rights issue or infringing on anyone else's human rights. If it isn't defined in the Constitution, the Federal Courts should leave it alone. Any idea how many times the SC has ruled in favor of the states on states' rights issues? Saying that SSM is a human right or a civil right over and over again doesn't make it a civil or human right, it is a privilege

  7. #477
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,409

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    And yet the will of the people is being ignored and that should scare the hell out of every American. Marriage is a state issue, it is common law, and the Federal govt. should never be involved. Activists justices are involved and making law rather than interpreting law. There is one solution, a Constitutional Amendment. You aren't going to like the outcome.
    What should scare the hell out of every American is the prospect of a tyranny of the majority. The majority of the citizens of southern states 50 years ago were in favor of segregation. By your reasoning the federal government should have never gotten involved then. You cannot vote away the rights of others. If you don't want gays to have legal marriage recognition, then you have to demonstrate how granting them legal marriage recognition impedes the rights of others. Of course you can't. Even if every state all of a sudden had to start issuing same sex couples marriages licenses, no church would have to recognize those marriages. For example, if you divorce and remarry the state recognizes your second marriage but the Catholic Church does not. Nobody's lives would be impacted other than those couples that were allowed to then get married and their families.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  8. #478
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,409

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I have a problem with anyone calling marriage a civil rights issue or infringing on anyone else's human rights. If it isn't defined in the Constitution, the Federal Courts should leave it alone. Any idea how many times the SC has ruled in favor of the states on states' rights issues? Saying that SSM is a human right or a civil right over and over again doesn't make it a civil or human right, it is a privilege
    This argument you just made is a perfect example of how ignorant most people are of the constitution. For the most part, the constitution does not grant you rights, it limits the powers of the government. In fact there was a lot of concern at the time of our founding that if a bill of rights were added to the constitution, some authoritarians later on would actually think that those were the only rights people had. By your argument, marriage is not a right because its no where in the constitution thus the government could outlaw all marriage. Cohabitation is not a right because its no where in the constitution, thus the government could outlaw cohabitation. Hell sex is no where in the constitution, thus by your reasoning a state government could require you have a permit to engage in sex, and could stipulate who you sleep with. The true slippery slope here would be if the federal courts actually to the extreme position of interpreting the constitution as you think they should. You could literally have a government as totalitarian as the government of Iran if the constitution were interpreted as you think it should be.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  9. #479
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,770

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I have a problem with anyone calling marriage a civil rights issue or infringing on anyone else's human rights. If it isn't defined in the Constitution, the Federal Courts should leave it alone. Any idea how many times the SC has ruled in favor of the states on states' rights issues? Saying that SSM is a human right or a civil right over and over again doesn't make it a civil or human right, it is a privilege
    You want to ban gays from accessing the institution of marriage. Call it what you will - human right, civil right, privilege of modern society - I don't care. But what you're upset about is people you don't approve of accessing a right/privilege that you have acknowledged was valuable and meaningful to YOU. If the courts keep going down this slippery slope, why would I care? I care more about the people able to access marriage, and their well being, than those who want to reserve that right/privilege to themselves and those like them. Two gays getting married doesn't affect or diminish my marriage or the marriage of anyone else. It's the beautiful thing about rights and privileges - extending them to others costs us NOTHING but the ability to express our "moral opprobrium" through restrictive access to those rights or privileges.

  10. #480
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    What should scare the hell out of every American is the prospect of a tyranny of the majority. The majority of the citizens of southern states 50 years ago were in favor of segregation. By your reasoning the federal government should have never gotten involved then. You cannot vote away the rights of others. If you don't want gays to have legal marriage recognition, then you have to demonstrate how granting them legal marriage recognition impedes the rights of others. Of course you can't. Even if every state all of a sudden had to start issuing same sex couples marriages licenses, no church would have to recognize those marriages. For example, if you divorce and remarry the state recognizes your second marriage but the Catholic Church does not. Nobody's lives would be impacted other than those couples that were allowed to then get married and their families.
    We have a Constitution, read it. There is no tyranny on the part of the majority being against SSM but like all leftwingers you make a mountain out of a mole hill all because you cannot defend your position so you use scare tactics. You use judges to advance a leftwing agenda vs the will of the people. We had the Constitution amended and will do it again. If there was tyranny of the majority many of those issues you are whining about would still be issues today

Page 48 of 83 FirstFirst ... 38464748495058 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •